[Haskell-cafe] Re: bimap 0.2

[Stuart Cook]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Christian Maeder
<Christian.Maeder at dfki.de> wrote:
> Neil Mitchell wrote:
>  > Yes, an MTL dependency is nothing to worry about at all, and isn't
>  > worth even thinking about removing given its actually used.
>
>  I would appreciate haskell98 portability!

My development version has removed the need for
Control.Monad.Exception and Control.Arrow. The only remaining H98
incompatibility I can think of is the use of foldl' in fromList.


>  We've called it "injective maps". Does surjectivity make sense a all?
>  Our other names are bad, but maybe "transpose" or "inverse" is better
>  than "twist" (viewing maps as finite functions).

In my mind, surjectivity is the property that each key in the
right-hand map is a value in the left-hand map (and vice-versa). This
is related to the unsafeInsert problem I mentioned earlier.

I'm open to suggesions for alternatives to "twist". I think it's cute,
because it suggests transposing something without fundamentally
changing it, but a less fanciful name could be a good idea.


>  Our delete function takes both values as input, possibly deleting two
>  entries, but your two delete functions make more sense.

Incidentally, someone might find it useful to have a two-argument
delete defined as

  deletePair :: (Ord a, Ord b) => a -> b -> Bimap a b -> Bimap a b
  deletePair x y bi
      | (x, y) `pairMember` bi = delete x bi
      | otherwise = bi

but it's easy enough to define that I probably don't need to provide it myself.


>  http://www.dfki.de/sks/hets/src-distribution/daily/Hets/docs/Common-InjMap.html
>  or
>  http://www.dfki.de/sks/hets/src-distribution/versions/Hets/docs/Common-InjMap.html

The getAToB and getBToA functions are interesting. I'm thinking of
adding them as toMap and toMapR.



Stuart